|
Authored by: RMAC9.5 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:42 AM EST |
I think now is the time for the small/independent software industry, the
EFF, and the Free Software Foundation to go on the offensive by filing
for exactly one software patent. I propose a software patent on using a
computer to do all the things that lawyers do today like filing legal briefs,
and researching legal precedents, and case law.
Once granted this
software patent would, like GPL software, be freely shared with all lawyers who
agree to follow its one limitation; that they will not participate in
software patent suits and that if they do, they immediately lose all rights to
use their computers in the practice of law. Their tools of trade
revert back to the typewriters and law books they used before computers were
invented!
We have been fighting a piecemeal, defensive battle that we
can never win for far too long. We have been hoping for a miracle solution (i.e.
a ban on software patents) that will never come as long as some parts of
corporate America believes that software patents can be/will be profitable. It
is time for the legal profession to experience some of the evil that they
unleashed by opening Pandora's software patent box. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:44 AM EST |
It will assist PJ if you indicate the nature of the proposed correction in the
title of your post.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:46 AM EST |
No on-topic (with respect to the main article) in this thread, or a suitable
punishment will be devised. Please remember the clickies.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Letters of The Law: The Year In Tech Law and Policy - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 09:23 AM EST
- Is it a watch, is it a phone, or - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:22 PM EST
- Something Doesn't Add Up - Too much medicine relies on fatally flawed research - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 09:33 PM EST
- The NewsCorp spying network .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 09:49 PM EST
- Wrist watch phone (Apple) but it's been done already - Authored by: complex_number on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 01:55 AM EST
- 2012: The year Irish newspapers tried to destroy the web - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:53 AM EST
- Except ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST
- US Navy buys Linux to guide drone fleet - Authored by: myNym on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 03:53 PM EST
- Microsoft finishes just 45 cents from 52-week low - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:36 AM EST
- European Commission attacks Open Source .. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:35 PM EST
- And now for something pressing - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:54 PM EST
- Observations - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:01 PM EST
- More Observations - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:09 PM EST
- Off topic here please - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 02:15 PM EST
- F Lee Bailey has been denied the ability to practice law in Maine - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:48 AM EST
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:48 AM EST |
Please identify which Groklaw newspick item you are referring to in the title of
your post, and it will be very helpful if you make a link so that the item is
still accessible from here long after it has scrolled off the bottom of the
page.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:49 AM EST |
If you are helping with these very useful transcripts, you will know what to do. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PX01627 - Authored by: JesseW on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:37 AM EST
- Comes-2841 - Authored by: JesseW on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 01:04 AM EST
- Comes-2841 - Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 09:26 AM EST
- PX05423 - Authored by: JesseW on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 05:37 PM EST
- PX05423 - Authored by: PJ on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 05:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:53 AM EST |
So PJ has only to blow away this one thread to get rid of all the trash. After
we have had a good laugh at you, of course.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:16 AM EST |
where is the wonderdul no sw "math" stuff Polr presented here.
seems that lawyers everywhere like to keep sw patents around - to argue about?
if no sw patents then no money...
and, stockholders would reject a filing that would reduce company value.
so it's greed and alove for a monopoly,wven if you don't deserve it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:17 AM EST |
The Supreme Court opinion in Mayo v. Prometheus summed up the two crunch questions that seem
to be at play in CLS Bank v. Alice. I give two long quotes, but they represent
just a fraction of the full, detailed and thorough opinion. I leave out the
citations because most are familiar. Please also note that the Supreme Court do
not say that no math is ever patentable. You should read the full text to see
why and where they draw the line:The Court has long held that this
provision contains an
important implicit exception. “[L]aws of nature,
natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable.
Thus, the
Court has written that “a new mineral
discovered in the earth or a new plant
found in the wild is
not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could
not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2; nor could Newton have patented the
law of gravity. Such discoveries are
‘manifestations of . . . nature, free to
all men and reserved
exclusively to none.’
“Phenomena of nature,
though just discovered, mental
processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are
not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological
work.” And monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might
tend to impede innovation more
than it would tend to promote
it.
You might consider the Oracle patent that told software
writers at which point in their programs they were entitled to resolve the
instructions denoted by text labels rather than numeric
ones.
Third, the Government argues that virtually any step
beyond a
statement of a law of nature itself should transform an unpatentable law of
nature into a potentially
patentable application sufficient to satisfy §101’s
demands (Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae). The
Government does not
necessarily believe that claims that
(like the claims before us) extend just
minimally beyond a
law of nature should receive patents. But in its view,
other
statutory provisions—those that insist that a
claimed process be novel, 35 U. S.
C. §102, that it not be
“obvious in light of prior art,” §103, and that it be
“full[y],
clear[ly], concise[ly], and exact[ly]” described, §112—can
perform
this screening function. In particular, it argues
that these claims likely fail
for lack of novelty under §102.
This approach, however, would make the
“law of nature”
exception to §101 patentability a dead letter. The approach is
therefore not consistent with prior law. The
relevant cases rest their holdings
upon section 101, not
later sections. (“A person may have ‘invented’ a machine
or a manufacture, which may include anything under the sun that is made by man,
but it is not necessarily patentable under section 101 unless the conditions of
the title are fulfilled”).
We recognize that, in evaluating the
significance of
additional steps, the §101 patent-eligibility inquiry and,
say,
the §102 novelty inquiry might sometimes overlap.
But that need not always be
so. And to shift the patent
eligibility inquiry entirely to these later sections
risks
creating significantly greater legal uncertainty, while
assuming that
those sections can do work that they are
not equipped to do.
The
two crunch issues can be crudely summarised as the Supreme Court saying that
math, abstract ideas and laws of nature are excluded from patentability and that
the §101 test for patent-eligibility must always be made because so many of the
pivotal Supreme Court opinions depend on §101 and would not be answered by the
later sections. Again, my quotes are not the full story and the full text is key
to a detailed understanding.
In CLS Bank v. Alice, we see the Federal
Circuit maintaining that patent claims violating Section 101 “should arise
infrequently” and that courts may wish to delay considering Section 101 in favor
of other “comprehensive” patentability requirements where those “might be
discerned by the trial judge as having the promise to resolve a dispute more
expeditiously or with more clarity and predictability. To paraphrase the Supreme
Court, This approach, however, would make the “abstract ideas” exception to §101
patentability a dead letter.
The District Circuit would like the later
sections to be considered first in order that the presence of a computer in a
claim lend patent eligibility to an otherwise patent-ineligible idea. No doubt
they are pleased that the new patents extend this principle to abstract ideas on
a smart mobile phone and abstract ideas, laws of nature and/or math to a touch
tablet.
Again, I refer you to the Oracle patent that monopolised when
a software writer could resolve an instruction from a text-based label, but only
on a mobile phone. It is quite OK to write such software on-a-computer; just not
on a mobile phone. “Phenomena of nature, though just discovered,
mental
processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they
are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” I think all the
Oracle patents in the case against Google monopolized 'those tools through the
grant of a patent' and impeded 'innovation more
than it would tend to promote
it'. Unless, of course, writing software does not qualify as technological
work.
In a comment a few stories back I said that the Supreme Court
really wanted to deal with these issues, a case at a time. They have no stomach
for a root and branch sorting out of the District Circuit.
These amicus
briefs cite each and every Supreme Court case and citation going back two
centuries that cover these issues. If the District Circuit do not confirm the
Supreme Court positions then the result has to be dramatic. The Supreme Court
cannot ignore such an action. We will find out what happens in the US when the
lower court overturns the upper court.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: om1er on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:47 AM EST |
PJ writes:You don't need the court's permission to file an
amicus
brief in this case, so there is even a pro se amicus brief arguing that
software is not patentable subject matter, not that this court is likely to pay
any attention to that argument, being so, so far from such a concept.
I thought that section shown from Stephen R. Stites pro se
amicus brief was
totally clear of fog and ambiguity. His writing showed the
reasons why
software is not patentable in an easily comprehensible
manner.
The other writings sometimes left me feeling that there was an
intentional
creation of impenetrable fog. At least one of the briefs resorted
to pointing
out words without any definitions in order to show the mess we are
in, but
doing that only served to increase rather than reduce the difficulty,
because
the reader is left to ponder the confusion, rather than plainly see a
solution.
Mr. Stites side-stepped the confusion, laid out the situation
clearly, and
provided an obvious solution. If his brief is dismissed by the
court, we will
all lose. I hope that they come to see the situation as plainly
as he does.
--- March 23, 2010 - Judgement day. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 01:21 PM EST |
then it's irrelevant.
At which point the task becomes doable in your head, and the patent fails.
A simple test for patents - delete all verbiage irrelevant to the claims (like
"on a computer") and see what is actually left.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- If the computer isn't necessary - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 02:55 PM EST
- doesn't mean that it's always practical - Authored by: Gringo_ on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 03:12 PM EST
- Misses the point - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:46 PM EST
- Difference - Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:06 PM EST
- what's the point of a steam engine patent? - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 04:52 PM EST
- what's the point of a steam engine patent? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 05:01 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Wol on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 06:08 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 08:13 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jesse on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 10:59 PM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 11:26 PM EST
- Nope. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 06:07 AM EST
- I disagree completely - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 10:37 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:10 AM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:38 AM EST
- Sorry about that. - Authored by: jesse on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 12:23 PM EST
- And you don't understand computation... - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 08:52 PM EST
- Easy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:25 AM EST
- Then you understand that mathematics is an abstract concept - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:52 AM EST
- So is physics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:29 PM EST
- If you understand computation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- Sure, you can simulate what a computer does with your mind - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 12:33 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 02:52 PM EST
- It's NOT simulation - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Hardware is NOT software - Authored by: jjs on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 06:54 PM EST
- Who is arguing that software by itself should be patentable? - Authored by: pem on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:29 PM EST
- You're missing the simulation point - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:34 AM EST
- not exactly. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 07:09 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 08:02 AM EST
- That is due to the recurseive observation.. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:17 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 11:49 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 01:58 PM EST
- you reminded me of a standard challenge. - Authored by: jesse on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:33 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 04:42 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 08:33 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: pem on Thursday, January 03 2013 @ 12:28 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 09:07 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 04 2013 @ 03:59 PM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: bprice on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 07:52 AM EST
- No, I'm not - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 05 2013 @ 09:51 AM EST
- I doubt it - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 03:44 PM EST
- No I'm not - Authored by: jjs on Wednesday, January 02 2013 @ 06:02 PM EST
- insurmountable task to build an analog computer - Authored by: Wol on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:51 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 04:59 PM EST
- Actually - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 07:07 AM EST
- The problem.. - Authored by: jesse on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 10:31 AM EST
- In other words, that the "how" is extremely important. - Authored by: jjs on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 07:10 AM EST
- If the computer isn't necessary - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 30 2012 @ 07:24 PM EST
- If the computer is necessary - - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 02:38 AM EST
- Is the process "enter 2+2= into calculator, review result" patentable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 11:51 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 31 2012 @ 04:58 PM EST |
IMB's brief says: "That the vast majority of computer-implemented
inventions are patent eligible is beyond debate."
Shame on you, IBM. That statement is flatly false and you know it. That
statement could not possibly have been made in good faith by anyone who
understands computers or computer programming. It is the argument of greedy
rent-seekers who only want to twist the law to their own profit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:24 AM EST |
Happy New Year from the UK.
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Consider these:
"If it is intellectual property, why isn't it
taxed?"
From http://
news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3350353&cid=42441987
"It
may prove difficult in the short term to reduce the term of copyrights which
have already been extended. Also, the forces pushing perpetual copyright are
strong. However, there is another route, which may be easier, employing the
concepts of Aikido -- moving with the strong force and redirecting it in a
better way. Rather than fight to reduce the maximum term of copyrights, consider
that existing and future copyrights could be taxed annually just like real
estate as long as they are kept from the public domain. This uses a market-based
approach to limit the external costs of copyright
monopolies."
From http:/
/journalism.berkeley.edu/projects/biplog/archive/000431.html
"T
he Supreme Court decided this week that the Constitution grants Congress an
essentially unreviewable discretion to set the lengths of copyright protections
however long it wants, and even to extend them.
While the court was
skeptical about the wisdom of the extension, seven justices believed it was not
their role to second-guess ''the First Branch,'' as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
put it. As I argued the opposite before the court for my clients, a group of
creators and publishers who depend on public domain works, I won't say I agree.
But there is something admirable in the court acknowledging and respecting
limits on its own power.
Still, missing from the opinion was any
justification for perhaps the most damaging part of Congress's decision to
extend existing copyrights for 20 years: the extension unnecessarily stifles
freedom of expression by preventing the artistic and educational use even of
content that no longer has any commercial value."
From http://www.nytimes.
com/2003/01/18/opinion/18LESS.html
These make me wonder if
these ideas can be extended to patents. Even if these articles discuss copyright
there may be some similarities which may be useful, or maybe not. Should patents
be taxed, i.e. even if not used?
--- ______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Tuesday, January 01 2013 @ 03:40 PM EST |
I browsed through the... gigantic thread above about patents and abstract
concepts, and I just wanted to hash some things out loud and glean some insight
from other readers. IANAL, obviously.
I am a programmer, and I understand that software is merely algorithm(s) + data.
I have to develop the algorithm in my head, otherwise how can I program it into
the computer? As they say, garbage in, garbage out. Computers are quite dumb:
they only do what we tell them to do. The algorithms are mathematical
algorithms, Boolean algebra in fact.
As a computer science student, I understand that processors merely shift,
combine, and split high and low voltages, concepts which we refer to as
"0" and "1" for our convenience. We combine enough of these
shifts into logic gates, and then into constructs that add, invert, etc. The
signals have no meaning to the hardware, it does not care if we call them hi-low
1-0, boo-goo.
Based on the fact that software is comprised of data (not patentable) and
mathematical algorithms (also not patentable), I would conclude that software by
itself is not patentable.
However, what happens when we put this in "a machine"? How does the
combination of hardware and software work with in the patent realm. If we are
just considering the hardware the software runs on, I don't think that the
combination is patentable, because you the hardware is general purpose (it may
be patentable itself, but no one is really arguing that point, a new CPU design
should be patentable obviously). You are not changing the nature of the hardware
merely by running different software on it. It is still doing the same things
(ADD, SUB, INV, STORE, etc) it was doing with any other software, just in a
different order. I fail to see how it was "transformed."As far as
"Bounce-back" is concerned, you are merely doing matrix math + Boolean
algebra, and displaying the output signal on a LED display. The algorithm is not
even that complicated.
What about if we talk about hardware in addition to the hardware the software
runs on? I think it depends on the wording of the claims. If you design a new,
better mousetrap run by a tiny computer with a sophisticated AI routine, I
believe the entire invention COULD be patentable. However, the software is
inseparable from the invention, if I take it and run it in a different kind of
mousetrap (different enough hardware-wise from the original), I would think I
would not be infringing a claim (and logically, I shouldn't be), but I probably
would in today's legal climate.
Now, here are some concepts I am still working on.
Is efficiency a determining factor in patentability?
Is doing something faster with nonpatentable components patentable? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|